If you are saying that everything that has happened had to happen because it did, and that everything that will happen will happen, and in essense it's "written" that way, then I'm with you 100%. We are fully synchronized with life.
Unconsciously, we each stem from Life, itself. We each unconsciously co-create each and every variable in our lives interactively with each and every other co-creator. You might think you are sitting at your computer and you happen to run across me here. Science/math can map that and the "odds" of it happening. And yet it's far more than that. Our consciousness has agreed to this interaction at a level far beyond what science can map. We are intending this interaction, either unconsciously, or unconsciously and consciously at the same time. There is intent and choice present, whether we know it or not. Once one begins to get this, then one can align with that unconscious consciousness, making it conscious. Then one can increase their ability to consciously affect people all around them whenever they want. And to create one's dreams. One realizes that usual social convention is an illusion, and therefore one can move beyond it. One recognizes fear mongering for what it is, and one is beyond it.
Charles Manson did not deliberately raise himself to be a "bad" person. And yet, unconsciously, he co-created each and every variable in his life. Our ego is the tip of the iceberg of our Self. What you might traditionally think of as yourself or as Charles Manson is a miniscule part of the true brilliance of who you or he is. In order to understand the truth, one moves beyond objective awareness, into the stellar inner space of subjective awareness. When one begins to expand one's consciousness to see what is really there, rather than only the limits of science, objectivity and what we've trained ourselves to see, when one melds subjectivity and objectivity, then one can begin bringing conscious awareness to this process that goes on anyway. There are essentially two options: we are unconscious of our free will, or we are conscious of our free will. Either way, we're 100% accountable for it in each moment of our existence.
Physical sciences cannot map the depths of life. It can only map the surfaces that are observed and it can analyze their relationships to one another.
Note: I agree the the traditional idea of free will is an illusion. To imagine we can just as easily choose one option over another and if we choose the "bad" one it's because we are bad. That's an illusion. I understand our choices are "determined". This is why numerous people find peace and wholeness when they find "God" or a connection with the underlying purposes that "drive" us.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Yea, I'm aware of Chris King's bifurcation theory. Unfortunately it's false and that entire paper paves the road to determinism.
"To understand how the subjective aspect arises requires both a radical investigation down to the foundations of
physics and an understanding of how subjective awareness, as opposed to mere computational capacity, may
have become elaborated by Darwinian natural selection. We thus have to find reasons why subjectivity itself,
rather than computation alone, is of pivotal importance in organismic survival. The answer lies in its capacity
to anticipate situations crucial to survival. For this to be possible, the foundations of physics must contain a
principle of space-time anticipation not covered by any mechanism of computation alone, or subjectivity would
become superfluous and would have never been selected for in evolution. This paper sets out to demonstrate
how quantum transactions universal to all quantum phenomena my fulfil this pivotal role."
Yes, we must search for Causality Chris, because not everything is Causal, that is a direct contradiction of logic. No, the subjective mind is not a predictor, the objective computational mind is a predictor, that is the point.
His bifurcation theory isn't taking into account the true complexity of space/time. As Angelica said "living in the now" now only exists as a concept, becuase now now, was now two seconds ago, or 2 milliseconds ago, or 2 nanoseconds ago, now is never now in that it is now independent of the now 2 nanoseconds ago or the now 2 nanoseconds from now. Time exists as a whole and the measurement of time is a concept we created to measure it, the clock on the wall does not define time. Einstein's theory of relativity actually proves this and Chris King is looking at the clock and measuring time and trying to make sense of it, which he can not.
You're seriously confused about both King and Einstein's theories. Both require time, and both require time as a dimensional construct. King is attempting to overcome any frozen-state paradox that arises from determination when examined from Einstein's conclusions. If, as you contend, determinism is simply causal, it would require complete linearity which collapses when both causality and retrocausailty exist. Furthermore, without time as a measurable concept, supercausality itself does not work.
If you are saying that everything that has happened had to happen because it did, and that everything that will happen will happen, and in essense it's "written" that way, then I'm with you 100%. We are fully synchronized with life.
Unconsciously, we each stem from Life, itself. We each unconsciously co-create each and every variable in our lives interactively with each and every other co-creator. You might think you are sitting at your computer and you happen to run across me here. Science/math can map that and the "odds" of it happening. And yet it's far more than that. Our consciousness has agreed to this interaction at a level far beyond what science can map. We are intending this interaction, either unconsciously, or unconsciously and consciously at the same time. There is intent and choice present, whether we know it or not. Once one begins to get this, then one can align with that unconscious consciousness, making it conscious. Then one can increase their ability to consciously affect people all around them whenever they want. And to create one's dreams. One realizes that usual social convention is an illusion, and therefore one can move beyond it. One recognizes fear mongering for what it is, and one is beyond it.
Charles Manson did not deliberately raise himself to be a "bad" person. And yet, unconsciously, he co-created each and every variable in his life. Our ego is the tip of the iceberg of our Self. What you might traditionally think of as yourself or as Charles Manson is a miniscule part of the true brilliance of who you or he is. In order to understand the truth, one moves beyond objective awareness, into the stellar inner space of subjective awareness. When one begins to expand one's consciousness to see what is really there, rather than only the limits of science, objectivity and what we've trained ourselves to see, when one melds subjectivity and objectivity, then one can begin bringing conscious awareness to this process that goes on anyway. There are essentially two options: we are unconscious of our free will, or we are conscious of our free will. Either way, we're 100% accountable for it in each moment of our existence.
Physical sciences cannot map the depths of life. It can only map the surfaces that are observed and it can analyze their relationships to one another.
Note: I agree the the traditional idea of free will is an illusion. To imagine we can just as easily choose one option over another and if we choose the "bad" one it's because we are bad. That's an illusion. I understand our choices are "determined". This is why numerous people find peace and wholeness when they find "God" or a connection with the underlying purposes that "drive" us.
See, you are a compatibalist, we have the same ideas in principle, but you believe in a subjective free-will that I do not. Either way there is causality for that subjective free-will, of course Charles Manson did not choose to spend his life in jail, or to be living in a garbage bin at age 12.
I can give a personal example of dynamic causality. When I was 7 years old I was racing my brother home from school on our bikes, he was beating me and I cut the corner on our street, I was then hit by a truck. Who's fault is that? Ultimately wouldn't it be mine for cutting the corner? Why did I cut the corner? Because I was racing my brother and I wanted to beat him, because he's older and as a middle-child I felt out-done by my older brother. So, now I'm hit by a truck in which the driver had no way of preventing it, except he was speeding and not paying attention, he was doing that because a beautiful girl was walking on the side-walk. The event of him hitting me changed both of our perceptions of reality drastically. There is causality for the event and the event is causality for our perceptions. The CDS of consciousness is not that linear however, the event only impacts our thoughts, it doesn't solely dictate them, other reinforcers or suppressors to our personality have effect as well.
I do believe in consciousness, and I do believe it is important as a buffer between input and output, but I don't believe it plays a computational role. There is a split second between when we make a decision and have the thought, there is another split second between having the thought and carrying out the action. Consciousness is a buffer, but doesn't serve any computational purpose, only awareness.
To say that evolutionary natural selection would rule out consciousness if it didn't serve an evolutionary advantage is absurd. The whole point of evolution is that changes occur that are good and bad, natural selection would only rule-out consciousness if it was significantly detrimental to our survival, which it is not. Additionally the science of cognition and Cellular Automata predicts that a simple rule such as:
Current State = S
Neighbours = (,) 1/0
Future State = F
If S = 1 & (1,0,0) then F = 0
If S = 0 & (1,0,0) then F = 1
If S = 0 & (1,1,0) then F = 1
and so on (Not a real example), by using this computational Cellular Automaton we are able to simulate life, consciousness and free-will. Because a result of this Cellular Automaton is fragments of information that serve no computational or operation purposes congregating together in the form of consciousness.
You can download a program called CASim and if you can understand it you can test it out for yourself, a very simple set of rules has been used to create artificial ants that build a cemetary, using very simple mathematical rules. One particular Cellular Automaton called Rule 30 produces results that appear to be random, but are in-fact determined by the Rule. This Cellular Automaton Rule 30 is used for random number generation, because it's more effective then alternative deterministic random number generators, however, they are all still deterministic, they just have the illusion of being random.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You're seriously confused about both King and Einstein's theories. Both require time, and both require time as a dimensional construct. King is attempting to overcome any frozen-state paradox that arises from determination when examined from Einstein's conclusions. If, as you contend, determinism is simply causal, it would require complete linearity which collapses when both causality and retrocausailty exist. Furthermore, without time as a measurable concept, supercausality itself does not work.
Causality is not always linear, it's causal in a chaotic system, such as the ripples in a pool of water, the effect the moon has on oceanic wave formation, the effect a butterfly has on tomorrow's weather, it's all causal but far more complex than being linear. Einstein basically said that now is not now independent of the past and the future. Just like there is nothing in the mind independent of what is outside of the mind.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
See, you are a compatibalist, we have the same ideas in principle, but you believe in a subjective free-will that I do not. Either way there is causality for that subjective free-will, of course Charles Manson did not choose to spend his life in jail, or to be living in a garbage bin at age 12.
I can give a personal example of dynamic causality. When I was 7 years old I was racing my brother home from school on our bikes, he was beating me and I cut the corner on our street, I was then hit by a truck. Who's fault is that? Ultimately wouldn't it be mine for cutting the corner? Why did I cut the corner? Because I was racing my brother and I wanted to beat him, because he's older and as a middle-child I felt out-done by my older brother. So, now I'm hit by a truck in which the driver had no way of preventing it, except he was speeding and not paying attention, he was doing that because a beautiful girl was walking on the side-walk. The event of him hitting me changed both of our perceptions of reality drastically. There is causality for the event and the event is causality for our perceptions. The CDS of consciousness is not that linear however, the event only impacts our thoughts, it doesn't solely dictate them, other reinforcers or suppressors to our personality have effect as well.
I do believe in consciousness, and I do believe it is important as a buffer between input and output, but I don't believe it plays a computational role. There is a split second between when we make a decision and have the thought, there is another split second between having the thought and carrying out the action. Consciousness is a buffer, but doesn't serve any computational purpose, only awareness.
To say that evolutionary natural selection would rule out consciousness if it didn't serve an evolutionary advantage is absurd. The whole point of evolution is that changes occur that are good and bad, natural selection would only rule-out consciousness if it was significantly detrimental to our survival, which it is not. Additionally the science of cognition and Cellular Automata predicts that a simple rule such as:
Current State = S
Neighbours = (,) 1/0
Future State = F
If S = 1 & (1,0,0) then F = 0
If S = 0 & (1,0,0) then F = 1
If S = 0 & (1,1,0) then F = 1
and so on (Not a real example), by using this computational Cellular Automaton we are able to simulate life, consciousness and free-will. Because a result of this Cellular Automaton is fragments of information that serve no computational or operation purposes congregating together in the form of consciousness.
You can download a program called CASim and if you can understand it you can test it out for yourself, a very simple set of rules has been used to create artificial ants that build a cemetary, using very simple mathematical rules. One particular Cellular Automaton called Rule 30 produces results that appear to be random, but are in-fact determined by the Rule. This Cellular Automaton Rule 30 is used for random number generation, because it's more effective then alternative deterministic random number generators, however, they are all still deterministic, they just have the illusion of being random.
It looks like you don't have a lot of insights into your sub or superconscious. It's unfortunate, considering the bulk of you resides there. As we get to know the superconscious level, we come to understand the purposes and meaning to our agreements beyond space-time--our contracts that we commit to and cause incidents like your accident. Science cannot give you such depths of life--it can only map the shallow surfaces. Only insight is insight.
I've had moments of consciousness, where I've seen the exact overviews and each relationship in my life in it's perfection, in different contexts. For example, I've been "shown" WHY I developed numerous disorders and the over-riding purpose for me to have gone through that in this lifetime, including where I am heading with that. I only have to walk the path.
Just like 12 years ago, I was shown why I had OCD, and I was shown how I would heal. And I was shown I would heal. And after seeing all that, I followed my gut feelings in every situation of my life, knowing I was guided. And I happened to find the exact perfect source here or there that healed me of some major mental illnesses and addictions, within 8 or so years. This intelligence within and beyond myself was/is very real.
EDIT: In our subjective awareness, EVERYTHING revolves around us. We are not a cog. We are God. We intend it ALL. We create everything that we see and we sustain everything. Science cannot assess value, so therefore science cannot answer the "why's". And science cannot appreciate the meaning. It can only map surfaces and their relationships.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It looks like you don't have a lot of insights into your sub or superconscious. It's unfortunate, considering the bulk of you resides there. As we get to know the superconscious level, we come to understand the purposes and meaning to our agreements beyond space-time--our contracts that we commit to and cause incidents like your accident. Science cannot give you such depths of life--it can only map the shallow surfaces. Only insight is insight.
I've had moments of consciousness, where I've seen the exact overviews and each relationship in my life in it's perfection, in different contexts. For example, I've been "shown" WHY I developed numerous disorders and the over-riding purpose for me to have gone through that in this lifetime, including where I am heading with that. I only have to walk the path.
Just like 12 years ago, I was shown why I had OCD, and I was shown how I would heal. And I was shown I would heal. And after seeing all that, I followed my gut feelings in every situation of my life, knowing I was guided. And I happened to find the exact perfect source here or there that healed me of some major mental illnesses and addictions, within 8 or so years. This intelligence within and beyond myself was/is very real.
Yes, after discovering the causality of your OCD you were able to overcome it, but not before hand, because your will to do so was determined by your understanding of the disorder.
Also, insight or intuition are determined by the frontal insular cortex of the brain.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yes, after discovering the causality of your OCD you were able to overcome it, but not before hand, because your will to do so was determined by your understanding of the disorder.
Also, insight or intuition are determined by the frontal insular cortex of the brain.
You cannot assess the meaning of anything if you are using science alone.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You cannot assess the meaning of anything if you are using science alone.
haha, the only alternative is guessing
Sorry, I'll go with 2 + 2 = 4 based on science, isntead of 2 + 2 = 22 based on a guess.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
What's ironic about this, really, is that a year ago I had this same conversation with a computational cognitive scientist and a biologist, and I used all the same arguements you guys are, but in the end I was wrong.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Sorry, I'll go with 2 + 2 = 4 based on science, isntead of 2 + 2 = 22 based on a guess.
Subjective levels of value exist. Which is why I don't often get proven wrong in a debate. Truth is truth. And when one subjective truth trumps another that is a fact. It's clear to those witnessing it. The "guessing" thing is pure illusion. The fact that you use an objective question to show your (lack of) understanding of subjective truth shows just how crippled that function is for you. That's the problem of science: the surface mapping of the physical realm has turned into scientism by overtaking and monopolizing realms that science and objective mapping cannot assess. So people walk around oblivious to what they cannot "see" even when they interact with it regularly in each day. It's because they don't know how to awaken to the framework. Therefore it remains unconscious. But right before your eyes.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I just want to know should I keep studying for my exam tomorrow? Or is the outcome pre-ordained? 'Cause if the outcome is pre-ordained I'm going for beers tonight, and if it's not pre-ordained I guess I'm stuck with studying.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I just want to know should I keep studying for my exam tomorrow? Or is the outcome pre-ordained? 'Cause if the outcome is pre-ordained I'm going for beers tonight, and if it's not pre-ordained I guess I'm stuck with studying.
You fate is predetermined, but it's dependent on wether or not you study. If you study you will perform better on your exam, that's not to say you won't pass, but you probably won't unless you study. However, wether or not you do study is determined already and probablistically you will. Judging by your statement I can predict with some certainty that you will continue to study for your exam, because you know that if you don't, then you may not pass.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I just want to know should I keep studying for my exam tomorrow? Or is the outcome pre-ordained? 'Cause if the outcome is pre-ordained I'm going for beers tonight, and if it's not pre-ordained I guess I'm stuck with studying.
I'd suggest you stick with the studying. The outcome is pre-ordained, based on your actions in the now. As Dr. Phil would say: "you choose the behaviour and you choose the consequences". Being pre-ordained doesn't mean you are guaranteed a positive outcome, or a negative one for that matter. From your perspective now, it's a surprise! Therefore it's a good idea that you own your will and create your own reality, given the circumstances. Aka: do your best!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Subjective levels of value exist. Which is why I don't often get proven wrong in a debate. Truth is truth. And when one subjective truth trumps another that is a fact. It's clear to those witnessing it. The "guessing" thing is pure illusion. The fact that you use an objective question to show your (lack of) understanding of subjective truth shows just how crippled that function is for you. That's the problem of science: the surface mapping of the physical realm has turned into scientism by overtaking and monopolizing realms that science and objective mapping cannot assess. So people walk around oblivious to what they cannot "see" even when they interact with it regularly in each day. It's because they don't know how to awaken to the framework. Therefore it remains unconscious. But right before your eyes.
So, since we cannot observe the whole earth doesn't mean the earth is flat. But since we can observe the whole earth means the earth is round.
We can observe the whole mind in many different objective and subjective ways. Psychology is mainly the subjective study of the mind. We know through psychology that suppressors and reinforcers determine a person's behavior. It's quite simple, the brain performs 400 billion computations per seconds and of those we are consciously aware of 2000. Those 2000 computations are not independent of the 400 billion our brains already compute. If you are aware of more than 2000 computations does not mean you control them, they are still computed independently of your awareness.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
What's ironic about this, really, is that a year ago I had this same conversation with a computational cognitive scientist and a biologist, and I used all the same arguements you guys are, but in the end I was wrong.
Umm...if you were "wrong" there is no wrong answer, since determination eliminates perception which in turn eliminates judgment.
Interesting Ahnimus. Are you pointing out that the crux of the matter is dependent upon the choice or free will of the subject? Checkmate.
No, His success on his exam is dependent on wether or not he studies, wether or not he studies depends on his knowledge of exams. He knows that passing the exam is dependent on studying, so therefor he studies. It's not a choice.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Umm...if you were "wrong" there is no wrong answer, since determination eliminates perception which in turn eliminates judgment.
Not exactly, because perception is determined by information. My perception at the time was incorrect due to misinformation or lack of information. Perception still exists with determinism, that is the point of having to increase our knowledge to better ourselves, we can not become better by simply willing it, because in our subjective consciousness we are already perfect until provided with significant information to suggest otherwise. Judgement is the computational outcome of our brains determined by the knowledge we posess. Judgement should not exist in the form of blaming another's free-will for their actions, when there actions are dependent on their knowledge and free-will does not exist.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'd suggest you stick with the studying. The outcome is pre-ordained, based on your actions in the now. As Dr. Phil would say: "you choose the behaviour and you choose the consequences". Being pre-ordained doesn't mean you are guaranteed a positive outcome, or a negative one for that matter. From your perspective now, it's a surprise! Therefore it's a good idea that you own your will and create your own reality, given the circumstances. Aka: do your best!
Damn it. You and Ahnimus finally agree on something and it involves me studying and not going out for beers.
I can tell you my tomorrow is pre-ordained. Study, write the exam, get results, spending many hours with buddy drinking to either celebrate or curse the fact that I'll be writing the exam again in two weeks and spending nearly $500 for that pleasure.
Whatever the outcome, pre-ordained or not, I'm letting loose tomorrow. My buddy's babysitting me and I'll find some nice lady to make laugh or drink trying.
Maybe this world is a mix of karma and grace.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Damn it. You and Ahnimus finally agree on something and it involves me studying and not going out for beers.
I can tell you my tomorrow is pre-ordained. Study, write the exam, get results, spending many hours with buddy drinking to either celebrate or curse the fact that I'll be writing the exam again in two weeks and spending nearly $500 for that pleasure.
Whatever the outcome, pre-ordained or not, I'm letting loose tomorrow. My buddy's babysitting me and I'll find some nice lady to make laugh or drink trying.
Maybe this world is a mix of karma and grace.
Haha that's funny.
Good example of how your tomorrow is predetermined by what you want to do, you ultimately decide this based on the complex dynamics of your brain, but free-will is not a part of it. Drinking is habitual and is reinforced by many aspects of society as well as the positive stimulus of being hammered. The only suppressor is the knowledge that alcohol damages the liver and the hang-over the next morning, which typically isn't sufficient to suppress the desire for the positive effects. So therefor you will drink tomorrow, unless some unexpected event interferes.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So, since we cannot observe the whole earth doesn't mean the earth is flat. But since we can observe the whole earth means the earth is round.
We can observe the whole mind in many different objective and subjective ways. Psychology is mainly the subjective study of the mind. We know through psychology that suppressors and reinforcers determine a person's behavior. It's quite simple, the brain performs 400 billion computations per seconds and of those we are consciously aware of 2000. Those 2000 computations are not independent of the 400 billion our brains already compute. If you are aware of more than 2000 computations does not mean you control them, they are still computed independently of your awareness.
Psychology is a science. When you are studying people and gauging and predicting behaviours, that is from the outside. It is not from the perspective of the subject. It is not subjective. The subjective is exprienced from within. It seems like you have little idea of what it is. That we consider the objective study of the subjective to be subjective continues to show how scientism continues to strangle balanced understanding. I'm not comfortable having a blind subject (scientist) doing my science for me. That our science people are blind is why we have ongoing scientism and not balanced science. All of the science is insidiously distorted by what people overlook about themselves.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Not exactly, because perception is determined by information. My perception at the time was incorrect due to misinformation or lack of information. Perception still exists with determinism, that is the point of having to increase our knowledge to better ourselves, we can not become better by simply willing it, because in our subjective consciousness we are already perfect until provided with significant information to suggest otherwise. Judgement is the computational outcome of our brains determined by the knowledge we posess.
You can't have "my perception" in a deterministic system. There is neither a "my" (conscious individual) or any possible perceptive construct you can build that would define perception. Perception is relative and without a conscious individual, there is nothing for reality to be relative to.
Judgement should not exist in the form of blaming another's free-will for their actions, when there actions are dependent on their knowledge and free-will does not exist.
That would be a judgment, by the way, in which you've blamed me for what you've judged as an incorrect post. Furthermore, my "blaming" becomes irrelevant since there is no standard to measure it against. Telling me what I "should" do would imply a choice in the matter in order to accomplish something morally correct. You've destroyed each of those concepts here.
Psychology is a science. When you are studying people and gauging and predicting behaviours, that is from the outside. It is not from the perspective of the subject. It is not subjective. The subjective is exprienced from within. It seems like you have little idea of what it is. That we consider the objective study of the subjective to be subjective continues to show how scientism continues to strangle balanced understanding. I'm not comfortable having a blind subject (scientist) doing my science for me. That our science people are blind is why we have ongoing scientism and not balanced science. All of the science is insidiously distorted by what people overlook about themselves.
What is your alternative to the modern scientific method?
"What I say is true"?
Because you can't prove it, because your experience is subjective and not impericle. Meanwhile someone following the scientific method can prove it objectively because it's reproducable.
"Hey look the earth is flat!"
"Wow, but how do we know it's flat? I mean we can't see the end of it."
"Don't be so scientific, we can clearly see that it's flat."
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Damn it. You and Ahnimus finally agree on something and it involves me studying and not going out for beers.
I can tell you my tomorrow is pre-ordained. Study, write the exam, get results, spending many hours with buddy drinking to either celebrate or curse the fact that I'll be writing the exam again in two weeks and spending nearly $500 for that pleasure.
Whatever the outcome, pre-ordained or not, I'm letting loose tomorrow. My buddy's babysitting me and I'll find some nice lady to make laugh or drink trying.
Maybe this world is a mix of karma and grace.
I think Ahnimus and myself agree more than we disagree. When he finds his inner self, we'll probably be able to do cool mind-swap intersubjective experiments over vast distances! Well I can already do them with him, but he can't do them back!
GOOD LUCK!!!! I'm sure you'll do just fine! As long as you don't spend too much time posting tonight! Make sure you let us know how you do!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
What I find weird about this discussion so far is that no one has touched on the idea of grace. Karma has been touched on in a way with actions having outcomes. Does anyone here accept grace as an occuring event?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
You can't have "my perception" in a deterministic system. There is neither a "my" (conscious individual) or any possible perceptive construct you can build that would define perception. Perception is relative and without a conscious individual, there is nothing for reality to be relative to.
That would be a judgment, by the way, in which you've blamed me for what you've judged as an incorrect post. Furthermore, my "blaming" becomes irrelevant since there is no standard to measure it against. Telling me what I "should" do would imply a choice in the matter in order to accomplish something morally correct. You've destroyed each of those concepts here.
Your thinking about determinism is far to linear for it's complexity. But then, you are looking to defend your integrated perception of free-will.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
No, His success on his exam is dependent on wether or not he studies, wether or not he studies depends on his knowledge of exams. He knows that passing the exam is dependent on studying, so therefor he studies. It's not a choice.
Are you eliminating or glossing over the role of the subject who makes the decisions?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
What I find weird about this discussion so far is that no one has touched on the idea of grace. Karma has been touched on in a way with actions having outcomes. Does anyone here accept grace as an occuring event?
There goes the studying!
What do you define as grace?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Are you eliminating or glossing over the role of the subject who makes the decisions?
No, I am not, the decision is made in the computational complexity of his brain, not his awareness. Free-will only exists within the awareness and the awareness only exists because of the brain. Therefor free-will is an illusion because his brain made the choice a split-second before he was aware that he made the choice. In-fact awareness can be seen simply as a synopsis of the brain's relevant activity. When a person uses their "will" their "will" has already been used by the brain and the conscious is only aware of it. This means that the brain is only a machine that computes information, like a computer.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm not sure what you mean by grace either. Many theists that accept the fact of determinism also accept that there may not be an endless loop of causality. That something could exist beyond our state of reality that exists as a cause of our reality, thus eliminating the need for infinite causality or a causal loop. It's also suggested that if an entity such as God can exist beyond our realm of reality and interact with it enough to cause it, then it's possible God acts as an intermediary to the complex system of causilty and can also interact with it, even though we can not because we exist within it. This is called a miracle.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Unconsciously, we each stem from Life, itself. We each unconsciously co-create each and every variable in our lives interactively with each and every other co-creator. You might think you are sitting at your computer and you happen to run across me here. Science/math can map that and the "odds" of it happening. And yet it's far more than that. Our consciousness has agreed to this interaction at a level far beyond what science can map. We are intending this interaction, either unconsciously, or unconsciously and consciously at the same time. There is intent and choice present, whether we know it or not. Once one begins to get this, then one can align with that unconscious consciousness, making it conscious. Then one can increase their ability to consciously affect people all around them whenever they want. And to create one's dreams. One realizes that usual social convention is an illusion, and therefore one can move beyond it. One recognizes fear mongering for what it is, and one is beyond it.
Charles Manson did not deliberately raise himself to be a "bad" person. And yet, unconsciously, he co-created each and every variable in his life. Our ego is the tip of the iceberg of our Self. What you might traditionally think of as yourself or as Charles Manson is a miniscule part of the true brilliance of who you or he is. In order to understand the truth, one moves beyond objective awareness, into the stellar inner space of subjective awareness. When one begins to expand one's consciousness to see what is really there, rather than only the limits of science, objectivity and what we've trained ourselves to see, when one melds subjectivity and objectivity, then one can begin bringing conscious awareness to this process that goes on anyway. There are essentially two options: we are unconscious of our free will, or we are conscious of our free will. Either way, we're 100% accountable for it in each moment of our existence.
Physical sciences cannot map the depths of life. It can only map the surfaces that are observed and it can analyze their relationships to one another.
Note: I agree the the traditional idea of free will is an illusion. To imagine we can just as easily choose one option over another and if we choose the "bad" one it's because we are bad. That's an illusion. I understand our choices are "determined". This is why numerous people find peace and wholeness when they find "God" or a connection with the underlying purposes that "drive" us.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You're seriously confused about both King and Einstein's theories. Both require time, and both require time as a dimensional construct. King is attempting to overcome any frozen-state paradox that arises from determination when examined from Einstein's conclusions. If, as you contend, determinism is simply causal, it would require complete linearity which collapses when both causality and retrocausailty exist. Furthermore, without time as a measurable concept, supercausality itself does not work.
See, you are a compatibalist, we have the same ideas in principle, but you believe in a subjective free-will that I do not. Either way there is causality for that subjective free-will, of course Charles Manson did not choose to spend his life in jail, or to be living in a garbage bin at age 12.
I can give a personal example of dynamic causality. When I was 7 years old I was racing my brother home from school on our bikes, he was beating me and I cut the corner on our street, I was then hit by a truck. Who's fault is that? Ultimately wouldn't it be mine for cutting the corner? Why did I cut the corner? Because I was racing my brother and I wanted to beat him, because he's older and as a middle-child I felt out-done by my older brother. So, now I'm hit by a truck in which the driver had no way of preventing it, except he was speeding and not paying attention, he was doing that because a beautiful girl was walking on the side-walk. The event of him hitting me changed both of our perceptions of reality drastically. There is causality for the event and the event is causality for our perceptions. The CDS of consciousness is not that linear however, the event only impacts our thoughts, it doesn't solely dictate them, other reinforcers or suppressors to our personality have effect as well.
I do believe in consciousness, and I do believe it is important as a buffer between input and output, but I don't believe it plays a computational role. There is a split second between when we make a decision and have the thought, there is another split second between having the thought and carrying out the action. Consciousness is a buffer, but doesn't serve any computational purpose, only awareness.
To say that evolutionary natural selection would rule out consciousness if it didn't serve an evolutionary advantage is absurd. The whole point of evolution is that changes occur that are good and bad, natural selection would only rule-out consciousness if it was significantly detrimental to our survival, which it is not. Additionally the science of cognition and Cellular Automata predicts that a simple rule such as:
Current State = S
Neighbours = (,) 1/0
Future State = F
If S = 1 & (1,0,0) then F = 0
If S = 0 & (1,0,0) then F = 1
If S = 0 & (1,1,0) then F = 1
and so on (Not a real example), by using this computational Cellular Automaton we are able to simulate life, consciousness and free-will. Because a result of this Cellular Automaton is fragments of information that serve no computational or operation purposes congregating together in the form of consciousness.
You can download a program called CASim and if you can understand it you can test it out for yourself, a very simple set of rules has been used to create artificial ants that build a cemetary, using very simple mathematical rules. One particular Cellular Automaton called Rule 30 produces results that appear to be random, but are in-fact determined by the Rule. This Cellular Automaton Rule 30 is used for random number generation, because it's more effective then alternative deterministic random number generators, however, they are all still deterministic, they just have the illusion of being random.
You can view the ant example here http://www.jweimar.de/jcasim/acri_ants.html
Fish swimming in an aquarium
http://www.jweimar.de/jcasim/Fische.html
Many more and software download here
http://www.jweimar.de/jcasim/#Overview
Causality is not always linear, it's causal in a chaotic system, such as the ripples in a pool of water, the effect the moon has on oceanic wave formation, the effect a butterfly has on tomorrow's weather, it's all causal but far more complex than being linear. Einstein basically said that now is not now independent of the past and the future. Just like there is nothing in the mind independent of what is outside of the mind.
I've had moments of consciousness, where I've seen the exact overviews and each relationship in my life in it's perfection, in different contexts. For example, I've been "shown" WHY I developed numerous disorders and the over-riding purpose for me to have gone through that in this lifetime, including where I am heading with that. I only have to walk the path.
Just like 12 years ago, I was shown why I had OCD, and I was shown how I would heal. And I was shown I would heal. And after seeing all that, I followed my gut feelings in every situation of my life, knowing I was guided. And I happened to find the exact perfect source here or there that healed me of some major mental illnesses and addictions, within 8 or so years. This intelligence within and beyond myself was/is very real.
EDIT: In our subjective awareness, EVERYTHING revolves around us. We are not a cog. We are God. We intend it ALL. We create everything that we see and we sustain everything. Science cannot assess value, so therefore science cannot answer the "why's". And science cannot appreciate the meaning. It can only map surfaces and their relationships.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yes, after discovering the causality of your OCD you were able to overcome it, but not before hand, because your will to do so was determined by your understanding of the disorder.
Also, insight or intuition are determined by the frontal insular cortex of the brain.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
haha, the only alternative is guessing
Sorry, I'll go with 2 + 2 = 4 based on science, isntead of 2 + 2 = 22 based on a guess.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
You fate is predetermined, but it's dependent on wether or not you study. If you study you will perform better on your exam, that's not to say you won't pass, but you probably won't unless you study. However, wether or not you do study is determined already and probablistically you will. Judging by your statement I can predict with some certainty that you will continue to study for your exam, because you know that if you don't, then you may not pass.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
So, since we cannot observe the whole earth doesn't mean the earth is flat. But since we can observe the whole earth means the earth is round.
We can observe the whole mind in many different objective and subjective ways. Psychology is mainly the subjective study of the mind. We know through psychology that suppressors and reinforcers determine a person's behavior. It's quite simple, the brain performs 400 billion computations per seconds and of those we are consciously aware of 2000. Those 2000 computations are not independent of the 400 billion our brains already compute. If you are aware of more than 2000 computations does not mean you control them, they are still computed independently of your awareness.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Umm...if you were "wrong" there is no wrong answer, since determination eliminates perception which in turn eliminates judgment.
No, His success on his exam is dependent on wether or not he studies, wether or not he studies depends on his knowledge of exams. He knows that passing the exam is dependent on studying, so therefor he studies. It's not a choice.
Not exactly, because perception is determined by information. My perception at the time was incorrect due to misinformation or lack of information. Perception still exists with determinism, that is the point of having to increase our knowledge to better ourselves, we can not become better by simply willing it, because in our subjective consciousness we are already perfect until provided with significant information to suggest otherwise. Judgement is the computational outcome of our brains determined by the knowledge we posess. Judgement should not exist in the form of blaming another's free-will for their actions, when there actions are dependent on their knowledge and free-will does not exist.
I can tell you my tomorrow is pre-ordained. Study, write the exam, get results, spending many hours with buddy drinking to either celebrate or curse the fact that I'll be writing the exam again in two weeks and spending nearly $500 for that pleasure.
Whatever the outcome, pre-ordained or not, I'm letting loose tomorrow. My buddy's babysitting me and I'll find some nice lady to make laugh or drink trying.
Maybe this world is a mix of karma and grace.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Haha that's funny.
Good example of how your tomorrow is predetermined by what you want to do, you ultimately decide this based on the complex dynamics of your brain, but free-will is not a part of it. Drinking is habitual and is reinforced by many aspects of society as well as the positive stimulus of being hammered. The only suppressor is the knowledge that alcohol damages the liver and the hang-over the next morning, which typically isn't sufficient to suppress the desire for the positive effects. So therefor you will drink tomorrow, unless some unexpected event interferes.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You can't have "my perception" in a deterministic system. There is neither a "my" (conscious individual) or any possible perceptive construct you can build that would define perception. Perception is relative and without a conscious individual, there is nothing for reality to be relative to.
That would be a judgment, by the way, in which you've blamed me for what you've judged as an incorrect post. Furthermore, my "blaming" becomes irrelevant since there is no standard to measure it against. Telling me what I "should" do would imply a choice in the matter in order to accomplish something morally correct. You've destroyed each of those concepts here.
What is your alternative to the modern scientific method?
"What I say is true"?
Because you can't prove it, because your experience is subjective and not impericle. Meanwhile someone following the scientific method can prove it objectively because it's reproducable.
"Hey look the earth is flat!"
"Wow, but how do we know it's flat? I mean we can't see the end of it."
"Don't be so scientific, we can clearly see that it's flat."
GOOD LUCK!!!! I'm sure you'll do just fine!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Your thinking about determinism is far to linear for it's complexity. But then, you are looking to defend your integrated perception of free-will.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
What do you define as grace?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No, I am not, the decision is made in the computational complexity of his brain, not his awareness. Free-will only exists within the awareness and the awareness only exists because of the brain. Therefor free-will is an illusion because his brain made the choice a split-second before he was aware that he made the choice. In-fact awareness can be seen simply as a synopsis of the brain's relevant activity. When a person uses their "will" their "will" has already been used by the brain and the conscious is only aware of it. This means that the brain is only a machine that computes information, like a computer.
I'm not sure what you mean by grace either. Many theists that accept the fact of determinism also accept that there may not be an endless loop of causality. That something could exist beyond our state of reality that exists as a cause of our reality, thus eliminating the need for infinite causality or a causal loop. It's also suggested that if an entity such as God can exist beyond our realm of reality and interact with it enough to cause it, then it's possible God acts as an intermediary to the complex system of causilty and can also interact with it, even though we can not because we exist within it. This is called a miracle.